The shooting death in Oxnard, California of a 15-year-old boy by a classmate earlier this month has spurred two primary responses: a call for tolerance (the slain youth was openly gay) and demands for enhanced school safety (the shooter smuggled a gun into a classroom).

            Neither of these remedies is likely to prevent future violence.

In the weeks before the shooting, the victim, eighth-grader Lawrence “Larry” King, had begun wearing high-heeled boots, jewelry and makeup to E.O. Green Junior High School. In the days leading up to the incident, several boys, including his attacker, taunted him.

But the reaction among King’s classmates after the shooting suggests that these bullies were outliers. Students created a makeshift memorial of flowers, candles, stuffed animals and other mementos at the school, and more than 1,000 youths attended a march for tolerance in King’s honor just a few days after his death. Many students, including the student body co-president, spoke of their affection for King. This outpouring of grief and support came from King’s peers. They accepted --or at least tolerated – King and were deeply shaken by his death.

E.O. Green, like all schools in the nation's most populous public school system, follows a state-mandated safety plan. Staffers monitor entrances and exits on the gated campus. A full-time counselor and a part-time psychologist are on hand to deal with problem kids. Students must wear uniforms (a video on the school’s website explaining the policy features a boy extracting an elaborate array of weaponry from his baggy jeans and loose shirt) and adhere to a strict dress code, which prohibits facial piercings, hats, clothing with logos and accessories with points or chains.

State law bars bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and school district officials told reporters that they were aware of friction between the two boys and had offered counseling to both. The alleged shooter, 14-year-old eighth grader Brandon McInerney, had no criminal history and was described in news accounts as generally a good student. After the shooting the school was locked down, the weapon was retrieved and the boy was apprehended by police a few blocks from campus. This was the first gun-related incident in the school’s 48-year history. Under the existing safety rubric, E.O. Green was as safe as any school could be.

Despite a largely tolerant student body and an administration that adhered to established safety standards, the school failed to keep one child from harm and another from harming him. As this shooting makes painfully clear, it is a mistake to focus exclusively on safety or tolerance, both of which require little or no engagement on the part of students. Gates and metal detectors offer a false sense of security -- mainly to adults. A “live and let live” mentality requires no action by anyone.

It would be easy to say that no school can ever be free of the specter of violence. But real solutions do exist.

In 2001, in the wake of the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, a RAND Corporation study found that “many school-violence prevention strategies are limited and may even backfire in the long run.” Programs that don’t work are those that focus solely on “physical safety measures, zero-tolerance policies and at-risk youth,” according to the study, presented to the California State Assembly Select Committee on School Safety (now known as the Select Committee on Youth Violence Prevention).

            The report was authored by Jaana Juvonen, chair of the developmental psychology program at UCLA. In recent years her work has focused primarily on middle schools, where students need a tremendous amount of help to overcome the perception that violence is "cool" -- help they are not getting.

Prevention works best, according to Juvonen's report, when it includes “explicit anti-harassment school policy; instruction for all students to help them understand the policy and develop conflict-resolution skills; and case-by-case staff mediation that reinforces both school policy and instruction.”

The study outlines the way to non-violence, and it isn’t easy. What schools need are approaches that “enhance psychological safety in addition to physical safety, include instructional programs aimed at changing social norms and developing mediation skills, involve all students instead of only the problematic ones, and are preventive instead of reactive.”

Change social norms. Involve all students. Prevent, don’t react. Few – if any – public schools have invested in this kind of labor-intensive transformation. Yet even in these lean budget times, the money for non-violence programs is out there, tucked in to existing school safety programs and block grants such as the federally funded Safe and Drug Free School Program, of which E.O. Green is a beneficiary.

The know-how is out there too. The Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence, for example, housed at George Washington University, was created by Congress in 1997 to provide "information, research, and support to make schools safer for high achievement." Working in seven states including Oregon, Georgia, Kentucky, Virginia, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and New York, they conduct needs assessments at schools and train teachers, emphasizing violence prevention. Here in Los Angeles, the Center for Nonviolent Education and Parenting offers classes and support for parents, teachers and caregivers.

Many organizations are enagaged in this work. If we want truly safe and tolerant schools we must enlist their help in creating a culture of non-violence.